So why is "IPv4 with longer addresses" a problem anyway?

Nick Hilliard nick at
Tue Jun 1 18:29:13 CEST 2010

On 01/06/2010 14:56, Benedikt Stockebrand wrote:
> destination.  NUD ensures that a dead router is detected at an average
> 30s, plusminus 15s to avoid synchronization effects.  RFC 4861 has all
> the details.

It kills me to add further noise to this thread, but this is probably one
of the base sources of contention.  It seems that you're happy with 15-45
seconds as an operationally / commercially acceptable time period for loss
of service in the event of gateway failure / failover.  If you accept this
level of service unavailability, then RA / NUD is quite adequate.

I don't accept that this is an acceptable operational / commercial
proposition for my customers.  Therefore RA / NUD is not viable on the
networks which I deal with.

Good, we've cleared something up.


More information about the ipv6-ops mailing list